D&D 5E Is he evil?

[Sunseeker]

I didn't say anything and we kept on gaming and having fun. Now, thinking back on it, I keep wondering, was this act evil?

Absolutely. Even if you had reason to believe that he meant you harm later, or had reason to believe he actually would harm you, it's still evil. The Battlemaster was winning, no contest (thanks in part to lucky dice) and the Bouncer had surrendered. I mean he literally killed a man for doing his job, that's what bouncers are supposed to do: end barfights and in D&D Fantasy Times*TM, killing the combatants is usually a perfectly acceptable and often legal way to do so.

Does this call for an alignment shift? No. Good people occasionally do bad things, bad people occasionally do good things. What matters is if he makes a habit of it.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Thats my whole point. Why didnt the law get involved?

Do you reckon even in the Middle Ages you could just ride into a villiage or town, murder someone in a tavern in full view of its patrons, and nothing happen as a consequence?

What a terrible way of looking at things.

The peasants and patrons should instantly react to the murder (possibly even confronting the PCs), just like real people would. They might be too scared to directly confront a bunch of heavily armed mercenaries, but I would expect some crying out or wailing in shock and horror, some dudes to possibly confront the PCs out of a moral obligation, more to race outside in either fear, or to alert the authorities, or both (and get away from the murderer as fast as possible) and so forth.

Who thinks like this?

And what PCs are going to engage in mass murder to cover their tracks, by fireballing a bunch of scared goodly peasants and bar batrons? How is this even an option for anyone other than the vilest and most unhinged and CE PCs?

Who does this exactly? No sane person. Its the equivalent of machine gunning down a bunch of patrons in a nighclub to cover your tracks after murdering someone. Its the sort of thing that (barring mass shootings, and even they have a series of complex psychological reasons behind them) simply doesnt happen. It's evil of the highest order, would be out of character for anyone barring someone who has consistently portrayed their PC as a totally unhinged and psychotic madman, and in any event would result in the PCs being hunted to the ends of the earth.

How could you travel with someone who did this? The whole party would have to be unhinged psychotic CE madmen for them to even consider travelling together after this. How could you travel with (or trust) a person who has murdered dozens of innocent men, women and children to save your own skin?

I mean think about it.

I agree with your assessment, but unfortunately I've seen far too many groups think like this, and most will attempt to justify it as self-defense.

The fact is, it would appear that the DM did not introduce any immediate consequences to the act. The player appears to not feel that there is any real problem with the act in the first place, and seems to feel that his action was justified as well.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

No, it is not Evil because the Bouncer came at the PC with a Sword. How is the Player supposed to know if it is a trick or not? When you are playing for keeps then it is much better to finish the fight now.

Yes it was. He was obviously overmatched, had dropped his weapon, yielded and had his hands up. You can't murder somebody because you think it might be a trick. If he then lunged at the PCs or made an aggressive movement, fine. But until then it's straight out murder.

More importantly, while the OP didn't describe how the bar fight was started, the bouncer came in to end it. This wasn't a case of the PCs going after the bad guy, it was he guy who was there to stop fights like this from happening.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Well.... A group of PC raid an orc cave. Is it an evil act?
The orcsprobably will die in battle but they are defending their homes.
Even if the players find the cave because they followed a trail of violent attacks at some caravans the PCs rarely (if at all) question who are the specific orcs that had committed the raids or capture them for a later trial. They just kill them all and the society reward them for it (the caravan guild problably, or the local governor).
The PCs live in a word where killing intelligent "people" is not always evil (and killing animals and monsters is almost always considered a good thing), moreover often killing is literally how they make their living.

So... killing the bouncer was good? No, not good, but evil? I suppose it depends on information we do not have on that specific campaign.

The DM questioned him in the act. The bouncer is another human or good humanoid. This is a simple question, and since no alternate world norms were noted, the default state of the D&D game applies. It was evil.

In the general D&D world, orcs are evil. They are essentially treated in the fantasy worlds as a virus that have no redeeming value and must be eradicated. The default situation where the orcs represent the evil in the world, just as the Empire in Star Wars does. They take the place of the Nazis in the Indiana Jones era. No other justification is needed.

This is a very interesting subject in and of itself, but in this case the situation taken at face value (and we have no reason not to), the act is an evil act.

 

[Flamestrike]

I agree with your assessment, but unfortunately I've seen far too many groups think like this, and most will attempt to justify it as self-defense.

They can 'justify' it all they want. When the consequences of that action kick in, they'll probably get the message. Not that I would let it get that far as a DM, because there would be a very clear warning that comes first, and I would be very clear that this path (once started down) cant be undone.

Players only do stupid childish like this because DMs all too often dont enforce the consequences. After the player murders the bouncer, have a wail come up from the corner of the tavern as the bouncers wife starts uncontrollably sobbing, holding a baby in her arms, and asking why why why! as tears stream from her eyes. Roleplay it. Have her approach the PC and flail at him screaming murderer!. Have patrons react accordingly. Reinforce the horror of what the PC has just done. Have everyone react like the monster he is. Have children hiding behind mothers, and several townsfolk race out the door to alert the local Lord that a mercenary band of stateless vagabonds have just killed Bob the Bouncer.

This kind of behaviour from players is always down to the DM.

Actions should have consequences.

The fact is, it would appear that the DM did not introduce any immediate consequences to the act. The player appears to not feel that there is any real problem with the act in the first place, and seems to feel that his action was justified as well.

And I would stamp down on that behaviour as a DM it wouldnt be funny. As a sidenote, I would as a player as well. If another player at the table was about to do something like this, I would advise him (player to player) that this means the end of his character and my character travelling together, and in light of that ask him to rethink his actions and the character he is portraying.

I highly doubt (unless I was playing an Evil PC, and even then its dubious) that I would want to travel with such a villian. He's a sociopathic monster prepared to murder a man (and in full view of others). There is no way I could trust him from that point onwards at a bare minimum.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

There's such a thing as crimes of passion, things done in the heat of the moment. I would classify this as such a thing. Yes, the player could have had the character act differently, but in the character eyes this person was just trying to kill them. The act was very wrong, but I don't think the character is evil because of it.

Taking a life when it is avoidable can't be the only parameter to make someone evil in D&D because then every melee character is evil. They always have a choice ( by the game rules I mean ) to make a melee attack a non lethal attack.

So the idea that there is a crime of passion committed by a character is a valid and potentially interesting one. But this isn't that type of situation. But there isn't any connection between them, no hatred or passion, just a moment following a combat. Involving a trained individual who has been in many combats.

The measure isn't not taking a life when it's avoidable here. In this case there was no need to take the life at all. It's not a question of whether they could have used non-lethal attacks to capture the opponent instead of lethal damage. It was an unarmed, surrendering individual, with an extra moment granted by the DM questioning the act.

Killing other intelligent "good" races (used to be human and demi-human instead of humanoid) where it is not in self defense is evil. When the situation escalates to combat, which is frequently, we give a pass on whether the characters started it or the bad guys. So there is a lot of gray area. But to kill a surrendering, unarmed individual after all threats are gone? That can't be anything else.

To say they have a choice "by game rules" isn't really relevant either. The game rules are there to determine what the characters can and can't do, and how to determine success. The decision isn't made by the rules, the decision is made by the player/character. When a character is in lethal combat with another, there is no issue with them returning with deadly force. If the hostile creatures are only attacking with non-lethal force, and the PCs escalate to lethal force, that's pushing it. If it's something they do on a regular basis, then I'd say they are evil.

But the more I consider this particular act, I'm not sure how the character themselves can't be labeled evil. Your crime of passion thing - I hunted him down and killed him because he killed my family - that's a different situation, although probably still an evil act. The difference is that the cold blooded killing of a stranger bouncer who is doing his job, then surrenders to the PCs is a different kind of evil act than the revenge killing of one that murdered your family.

So I really think that this is the sort of act that really pushes the character to neutral evil or chaotic evil.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

They can 'justify' it all they want. When the consequences of that action kick in, they'll probably get the message. Not that I would let it get that far as a DM, because there would be a very clear warning that comes first, and I would be very clear that this path (once started down) cant be undone.

Players only do stupid childish like this because DMs all too often dont enforce the consequences. After the player murders the bouncer, have a wail come up from the corner of the tavern as the bouncers wife starts uncontrollably sobbing, holding a baby in her arms, and asking why why why! as tears stream from her eyes. Roleplay it. Have her approach the PC and flail at him screaming murderer!. Have patrons react accordingly. Reinforce the horror of what the PC has just done. Have everyone react like the monster he is. Have children hiding behind mothers, and several townsfolk race out the door to alert the local Lord that a mercenary band of stateless vagabonds have just killed Bob the Bouncer.

This kind of behaviour from players is always down to the DM.

Actions should have consequences.

And I would stamp down on that behaviour as a DM it wouldnt be funny. As a sidenote, I would as a player as well. If another player at the table was about to do something like this, I would advise him (player to player) that this means the end of his character and my character travelling together, and in light of that ask him to rethink his actions and the character he is portraying.

I highly doubt (unless I was playing an Evil PC, and even then its dubious) that I would want to travel with such a villian. He's a sociopathic monster prepared to murder a man (and in full view of others). There is no way I could trust him from that point onwards at a bare minimum.

Totally agree.

PS, I'd go with Benny the Bouncer myself.

 

[Shasarak]

Yes it was. He was obviously overmatched, had dropped his weapon, yielded and had his hands up. You can't murder somebody because you think it might be a trick. If he then lunged at the PCs or made an aggressive movement, fine. But until then it's straight out murder.

More importantly, while the OP didn't describe how the bar fight was started, the bouncer came in to end it. This wasn't a case of the PCs going after the bad guy, it was he guy who was there to stop fights like this from happening.

Of course it is not murder unless every fight the party gets into can be considered murder. Sometimes NPCs just got to learn what happens when they come up against an Adventuring party.

Besides what the hell kind of Bouncer uses a sword to fight someone? That is just not normal.

 

[Flamestrike]

Of course it is not murder unless every fight the party gets into can be considered murder.

What? Murder is murder. Self defence is not murder.

Sometimes NPCs just got to learn what happens when they come up against an Adventuring party.

Spoken like a true sociopathic murderhobo. Youd last all of 5 seconds in a real campaign with that attitude. Id also change your alignment to Evil.

Besides what the hell kind of Bouncer uses a sword to fight someone? That is just not normal.

A valid point, and the only one you made. The Bouncer is up for attempted murder most likely himself. He resorted to lethal force. He was fair game while so armed.

 

[Dausuul]

The difference is that the cold blooded killing of a stranger bouncer who is doing his job...

A real-world bouncer who responded to a bar fight by pulling a knife would not only be fired, but arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Drawing a lethal weapon is the exact opposite of "doing his job." It's a bouncer's job to break up fights with a minimum of harm, not put dead bodies on the floor.